Why hope?

David Newheiser’s Hope in a Secular Age raises a number of significant questions addressing the philosophical, political, ethical and theological situation of the world today. The philosophical approach, influenced by Jacques Derrida, is deconstructive. Deconstruction is all about questioning metaphysical and religious certainties, and thereby raising existential, ethical and political questions from a new angle in a situation of profound uncertainty. As Newheiser points out, the key to a deconstruction of metaphysics is a rereading of texts, in order to detect inherent tensions in arguments, notions or conceptual binaries. In this case, the reader is challenged to reconsider the meaning of religion in a “secular” age, but thereby also her own construction of ultimate sense, religious or secular. Authors as different in time and framework as the apophatic theologian Dionysius Areopagita (fifth century) and the postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida (late twentieth century) are the odd companions for such wayfarers. Newheiser has written a book that is both timely and thought-provoking. Not only the notion of modernity, but also the notion of secularity is questioned: What has changed in our perception of “the secular” today? Is it destabilized by a new sense of “religion”? What is, then, the meaning of “God” and God’s name in a secular age? Can we be certain about what we reject or embrace, deny or worship under this name? Moreover, how could such deliberations provoke us to rethink and possibly react, ethically and politically, to vital societal and existential issues in an age when democracies are undermined by authoritarian forces? Hope is the crucial term in this attempt to discuss religion, ethics and politics from a new angle: Hope as a quest for possibility, even when there are no viable options and the political situation seems impossible. Hope as an ethical virtue and attitude. Hope as reaction to despair. Hence, the author’s personal and political quest to his audience reads as follows: How can we find hope when the world seems to fall apart through violence, lies and moral decay? Newheiser answers this with an example and an ethical imperative: “Dionysius and Derrida show that it is possible to keep faith in the dark through the discipline of hope.” (Newheiser 2020, 11) Hence, we ought to practice the “discipline” of hope. I disagree with Newheiser at this point, but the point of disagreement needs further clarification. To be sure, I am hardly an enemy of hope, and I can admit that there is a need for courage and discipline in the world today. Moreover, I warmly welcome the insisting tone of this book. However, I disagree when it comes to Newheiser’s